Help me design a rule

[isirga eth]

Help me with a conundrum that's been haunting me for the last ten years:

How would you go about making an overlap system (where the highest determining attribute was the ONLY important one) while making it worthwile to raise the other involved attributes?

The point is, I want to create a game system where only the highest modifier is applied to any roll (don't ask me why, it's a long story. I have to design such a system, period).

Examples:

...Barbarian Joe has a +3 Str, +3 BAB and a +4 Greataxe. He's also weapon focused in Greataxe. However, Str, BAB and Weapon focus notwithstanding, he only gets +4 to his attack rolls with the Greataxe.

...Paladin Bill is lvl 2 and has +2 BAB, +3 Str and +1 Cha bonus. He only gets a +3 to the attack roll and damage using his smite power, since it is the highest of his bonuses.

...Fighter Fred has +20 BAB, so it doesn't matter what feats or Strength-enhanced equipment he has; his attack rolls will rarely get a bonus higher than +20.

So, the riddle:

How do I make these guys benefit from the lot of non-highest, cool bonuses they have, without breaking the overlap rule (that only the highest attribute is applied to the roll)?

How do I make Joe, Bill and Fred's players WANT to raise OTHER attributes, besides their highest one?

Any ideas?

 

[Someone]

Because sometimes they can´t use the highest bonus. Certain conditions, like combat manoeuvres, can lower or cancel entirely one of the bonuses. So, if you´re a one trick pony, it´s easy to learn and counter your trick!

 

[isirga eth]

Thank you for replying, Someone.

That's a way to solve it, but it still makes the lesser bonuses less desirable - and it falls in the hands of the DM to create the need for them. If your DM was too kind or forgetful, you could end never needing the secondary bonuses anyway.

 

[Rasyr]

Another idea is to tie special maneuvers to the lesser bonuses.

If you create special maneuvers that use the lowest of the three bonuses (and the maneuver is REALLY cool), this will urge players to increase all of the bonuses, keeping them even if possible, so that their lowest bonus does not hurt them when using the special ability...

 

[Romotre]

I don't understand fully the purpose of this system. A 20th lvl peasant with average stats will have the same +to hit as a 10th fighter with 22 Str, a +4 sword and a whole bunch of buffs?

How about halving the bonuses from the non-highest source?

Again, i have no idea what is going on.

 

[XCorvis]

I'm confused too. What is it you're trying to accomplish? You just want players to diverisfy a bit more in their stat adjustments?

Oh, I know. You made a bet, didn't you, and now you have to make this system or fork over $50, right?

 

[NilCat]

...Paladin Bill is lvl 2 and has +2 BAB, +3 Str and +1 Cha bonus. He only gets a +3 to the attack roll and damage using his smite power, since it is the highest of his bonuses.

Why would the Paladin smite at all, when he'd get the same bonus by just attacking?

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I don't know why you'd want to do this either, but here goes...

It seems that BAB is the value that would most likely increase to higher values, so there should be some way of limiting it.

You could rule that the maximum useable BAB was equal to the sum of the other applicable modifiers. This would encourage development of these 'unused' attributes.

For example, +3 STR and +5 Sword would allow a maximum of +8 BAB. If your BAB was +12, you would still only be able to use +8.

Hmm...

Magic bonuses on weapons would have a much greater range in such a system, in order to allow a character to take advantage of his greater skill--perhaps the lower ranges of 'magical' bonuses wouldn't even be magical, instead being representative of craftsmanship that lets the character take full advantage of his skill.

Modifier for ability scores should probably be multiplied by a factor of 2 or so, in order to keep them from being overshadowed by BAB and the increased magical bonuses.

So, the rule would be...

Max modifier useable equals the sum of the unused modifiers.

Example...

STR 18: +4 -> +8

Magic: +10 Sword

BAB: +20

The character would have a bonus of +18. If he were able to increase his STR bonus to +10 or find a +12 Weapon, he would then be able to use his full +20 BAB. However, if he found a +15 Sword, he would still be limited to +20 BAB, but could make use of up to a +23 BAB if he were able to improve his skill.

The above doesn't always let you simply use the highest value, but it does give a reason for developing the lower ones.

This might be fun for a simple beer and pretzels sort of game.

Hmmm....

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Have the different bonuses apply to different things. For instance, use the highest one for attack roles, but only use the STR bonus for damage.

Another way to approach it would be to give lots of different kinds of challenges that call for Strength. So even your strength is not helping you so much on your combat rolls, you would still want to have a high strength in order to jump, lift, climb, etc.

 

[isirga eth]

- "Again, i have no idea what is going on."

- "Oh, I know. You made a bet, didn't you, and now you have to make this system or fork over $50, right?"

It's really a very long and pointless story. The core idea is, yes, I have to design this systemn, though it is apparently impossible.

- "Have the different bonuses apply to different things. For instance, use the highest one for attack roles, but only use the STR bonus for damage. "

No; they all must help the same roll.

- "You could rule that the maximum useable BAB was equal to the sum of the other applicable modifiers. This would encourage development of these 'unused' attributes."

Yes, but then a level 1 guy with an 18 Str would beat a level 1 guy with a 17 Str.

- "Why would the Paladin smite at all, when he'd get the same bonus by just attacking?"

Exactly; How do I make him want to smite at all?

Sorry for making it so difficult; it's one of the clauses of the... um, let's call it bet.